M10 Booker Combat Vehicle / Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)

[Josh_TN]

Quite honestly the U.S. probably is not too worried about their ground game. In any case, I think the next “M1” will effectively be a clean sheet redesign that just keeps the name. The SEP4 modification was cancelled as being too heavy. Any major weight reduction will require major changes. The M-1X GD proposed uses a hybrid propulsion, unmanned turret with auto loader, 30mm secondary weapon, and places a three man crew in the hull. IE, it has nothing in common with an M-1 outside the gun.

 

[Firefinder]

Then you have the Age old Cause alot of Fights Debates question of...


What does a modern tank needs?

As is the M1 hull is as near perfect you can get without a complete doctrine and materail change up. Leaving the turret to be switch around. And aass seen by like...

8? different test vehicles ranging from the TTB to the Thumber you can do alot of turret changing on the M1 hull and even a decent bit of modification to it as well. Like the TTB had nearly everything the T14, slap on the Trophy system it will have everything. That is a modification of the M1 hull, a minor one at that.


Leading to the question of do we really need to clean design the hull or can we mod them?

Which then you need to factor in the over 6k hulls sitting in the Serria which can be mod to a new spec at far cheaper price.


TLDR Tank needs are changing and the M1 hull is stupid flexible futurproofing wise...

 

[Josh_TN]

I do not know if it is more cost effective to use existing hulls. I would not have thought so if you need to add the crew compartment to the hull, but perhaps. It is not clear what the new version will entail but if they are moving the crew outside the turret, that is more or less a clean sheet design - the turret would radically change (autoloader but also crew compartment deleted) and the hull would dramatically change (possibly different turret ring and seating for at least three). I would assume powerpack changes as well, even assuming it is still a turbine. The AGT-1500 is an old design. I think hybrid diesel/electric would be a better fit.

 

[Firefinder]

I do not know if it is more cost effective to use existing hulls. I would not have thought so if you need to add the crew compartment to the hull, but perhaps. It is not clear what the new version will entail but if they are moving the crew outside the turret, that is more or less a clean sheet design - the turret would radically change (autoloader but also crew compartment deleted) and the hull would dramatically change (possibly different turret ring and seating for at least three). I would assume powerpack changes as well, even assuming it is still a turbine. The AGT-1500 is an old design. I think hybrid diesel/electric would be a better fit.

Again the TTB which did the same thing in the early 90s, was a moded Abrams hull.

With the Mods bring the Removal of the two forward fuel tanks, which sit on either side of the driver, for two more driver chairs. With the biggest mod being the two added hatches and added front Armor.

Everything else, minus the turret, was the same.

With the turret holding 44 120mm shells with autoloader with them finding room for another 16 in the loader for a possible full 60 120mm load.

While the Thumber was a 140mm arm test abrams which was just a turret swap of a standard M1.

If there no reason to switch up the hull design...

why do so?

 

[GTX]

Horrific, the inability or unwillingness to start with a clean sheet. Uninspired warming up of last week’s potatoes and the week before that.

Go read some facts upon what is involved/proposed with the M1E3 before posting such.

I have a suspicion that a significant % of the uniform & civilian DoD just want to give it all up & just do an all drone military.
No worries about recruiting, casualties, design factors for humans, etc

Horrific

If you honestly believe this you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Go read some facts upon what is involved/proposed with the M1E3 before posting such.

If you honestly believe this you are sadly mistaken.

I will be very happy to be proven wrong on both accounts.

We’ll see what happens soon with the XM30. If it doesn’t “come under review” the closer it gets to final selection & then procurement.

I see a military in general and an Army in particular not knowing what it wants other than cheap weapons, big numbers & low casualties.

 

[GTX]

We’ll see what happens soon with the XM30. If it doesn’t “come under review” the closer it gets to final selection & then procurement.

XM30 has nothing to do with this thread - stay on topic

I see a military in general and an Army in particular not knowing what it wants other than cheap weapons, big numbers & low casualties.

Have you ever served within or worked with a Military?

 

[Bruno Anthony]

XM30 has nothing to do with this thread - stay on topic

Have you ever served within or worked with a Military?

I used XM30 as an example of what may come.

No I haven’t served.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The M1E3 looks like it will effectively be a different tank. Power pack, turret, crew positions all might change.

Still getting called an M1. Was the M4A3 76mm a different tank than the M4(no suffix) 75mm?

A new hull would likely get a new M-number (and name. Who was senior officer at 73 Easting? what other good/legendary armor officer names do we have left unused?)

 

[shin_getter]

What does a modern tank needs?

As is the M1 hull is as near perfect you can get without a complete doctrine and materail change up. Leaving the turret to be switch around. And aass seen by like...

....TLDR Tank needs are changing and the M1 hull is stupid flexible futurproofing wise...

The lowing cost of precision munitions that can target armor weak points means that avoiding penetration is no longer a reliable means of battlefield survival. With modern tech it is possible to have distributed redundant powerplants that can operate after penetration.

I'd even go back to christie and figure out powered roadwheels to enable crawling after getting tracked, if not multiple track pods instead of one big track. The reduction in max payload would just have to be accepted, as a lot of armor is useless if the weak link in the defense is not covered.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The lowing cost of precision munitions that can target armor weak points means that avoiding penetration is no longer a reliable means of battlefield survival. With modern tech it is possible to have distributed redundant powerplants that can operate after penetration.

I'd even go back to christie and figure out powered roadwheels to enable crawling after getting tracked, if not multiple track pods instead of one big track. The reduction in max payload would just have to be accepted, as a lot of armor is useless if the weak link in the defense is not covered.

Powered road wheels are relatively easy. Wheel hub electric motors. Oh, look, instead of needing a ~800hp electric motor at each track final drive, you have a ~120hp motor at each of 6 road wheels. Or a 100hp motor on each road wheel, "drive" gear, and idler sprocket.

But I'm not sure how far you'd be able to crawl with how narrow road wheels are compared to tracks. I suspect you'd sink bad.

 

[Apophenia]

... Who was senior officer at 73 Easting? ...

Then-Colonel Don Holder was in command of 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_D._Holder_Jr.

 

[Cjc]

This doesn't even make sense.

The only version of the M8 that had a crew compartment is that "hybrid" vehicle that seems to have created the volume by magically assuming that the engine could go "somewhere else" just because it's electric. But there's just no other volume in the M8 hull for an engine, so good luck with that.

Now, as for an MPF-like vehicle needing organic dismounts, this seems like a total misreading of its role. It is intended to provide fire support for light forces, not reconnaissance. That means there will already be infantry dismounts there, with their own transports. MPF doesn't need to cram dismounts in the back any more than a main battle tank needs to carry its own infantry. (Don't even mention Merkava, which can carry pax only at the expense of some or all of its spare ammo, and even then only by having them sit on the floor with their rucksacks.)

You do know that the thunderbolt drove right? There was nothing magical about it, the hybrid system simply created a lot of space in the hull they need to fill with something (it also provided a lot more horse power, 350 hp engine and 750hp electric motors for 1100 hp total)

Personally I would have used that space for ammo sense the auto loder could only hold 18 rounds of 120mm so preferably another autoloader for the autoloader but probably gust a palitalized load of 120mm that the poor 3 man crew were going to have to reload by hand.

Gust to give out all the information I have on the thunderbolt it could move about 6 km on gust battery power (and of course idel) wich when combined with the rubber tracks "apparently" made the thunderbolt scary quiet.

 

[TomS]

You do know that the thunderbolt drove right? There was nothing magical about it, the hybrid system simply created a lot of space in the hull they need to fill with something (it also provided a lot more horse power, 350 hp engine and 750hp electric motors for 1100 hp total)

Personally I would have used that space for ammo sense the auto loder could only hold 18 rounds of 120mm so preferably another autoloader for the autoloader but probably gust a palitalized load of 120mm that the poor 3 man crew were going to have to reload by hand.

Gust to give out all the information I have on the thunderbolt it could move about 6 km on gust battery power (and of course idel) wich when combined with the rubber tracks "apparently" made the thunderbolt scary quiet.

So, I dug in some more and I will admit that I did not understand what they had done with Thunderbolt. Engine relocated to one sponson at the rear of the hull, with batteries in the other. That does indeed give room for some dismounts at the rear. Though why you would want dismounts in an assault gun or tank destroyer, I'm not sure.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1457269864016400384

View: https://x.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1457269864016400384

 

[blockhaj]

I think they specifically said that in an interview or article that I can remember.

They call the Booker an assault gun, not a light tank, so I can't blame that other people who only got little military knowledge of proper terminologies kept calling it a light tank.

There are even people in the US army who keeps calling it and earlier projects as light tanks.. Stupidity goes deep. By usuage, even the Sheridan was an assault gun a lot of the time.

 

[Firefinder]

There are even people in the US army who keeps calling it and earlier projects as light tanks.. Stupidity goes deep. By usuage, even the Sheridan was an assault gun a lot of the time.

I mean...

That includes the M1 Abram.

A tank, be it light heavy or main primary job is basically assualt positions first murder tanks second.

And if you make a Vern Diagram you find that it be a damn circle with all the big armor vehicles, SPGs APCs MBTs etc have their one or two tricks as their own.

The only reason why we dont have a vehicle to rule it all is due to ot not being worth it.
It be a 80 ton plus beast bigger then some houses, but it be possible.

 

[blockhaj]

I mean...

That includes the M1 Abram.

A tank, be it light heavy or main primary job is basically assualt positions first murder tanks second.

And if you make a Vern Diagram you find that it be a damn circle with all the big armor vehicles, SPGs APCs MBTs etc have their one or two tricks as their own.

The only reason why we dont have a vehicle to rule it all is due to ot not being worth it.
It be a 80 ton plus beast bigger then some houses, but it be possible.

"Assault gunning" (i guess?) is encompassed in an MBTs role. The M10 Booker can neither perform proper armoured brakethroughs nor properly scout. There is no reason to call an M1 Abrams an assault gun nor the M10 Booker a light tank (it also weighs as much as an M26 Pershing).

 

[Dilandu]

A tank, be it light heavy or main primary job is basically assualt positions first murder tanks second.

That simple logic somehow evaded the majority of tank designers in late XX century, who were so enamoured with the idea of mobile mechanized warfare, that they started to design glass cannons on tracks, which main purpose was to fight enemy tanks.

 

[Grey Havoc]

To be fair, the best anti-tank weapon has always been another tank (even the A-10 was a flying tank ).

 

[shin_getter]

Just about every vehicle can be made to assault positions. After all, a BMP-3 have all the firepower needed, as are pickup trucks with a 106mm Recoilless mounted. Autocannon shooters can also do the job just by shooting more, as field fortifications do not resist 20mm+ AP. A modern 4x4 with improvised armor and weapons is likely on par with FT-17 and overmatches small arms just the same.

Lighter vehicles have worst armor, but armor isn't reliable and not being shot at via shoot and scoot is the best defense, and infantry isn't armored and suffers all the casualties even if the tank is invulnerable, thus protection doesn't do that much for manpower losses in general.

The main thing is that in ww2, the best counter is another tank-like vehicle as the static gun is easy to defeat via artillery and HEAT throwers was badly outranged. This lead to tank battles and basically defined (the public) understanding of tanks ever since.

In the conflicts since, just about everything with wheels have been rigged into fire support in assaults while people that discuss tanks talk about angle of the lower front plate and sabot velocity above all else since anything that doesn't front turret plate overmatch is "useless auxiliary vehicle irrelevant to the big battle."

I guess given sufficient distance to conflict, all understanding of armor revert to Hitlerian gigatism~

 

[GTX]

 

[Colonial-Marine]

That simple logic somehow evaded the majority of tank designers in late XX century, who were so enamoured with the idea of mobile mechanized warfare, that they started to design glass cannons on tracks, which main purpose was to fight enemy tanks.

I think you need to consider the Cold War environment most of these tank designers were facing. What was the primary threat going to be for NATO tanks if the Soviet Union drove west? The huge numbers of Warsaw Pact AFVs. And the most intimidating among those was the medium, heavy and main battle tanks. If you can defeat those, you can also defeat their lighter AFVs. Enemy infantry was rather a secondary concern in this context, especially since NATO would be largely fighting on the defensive in an environment where Warsaw Pact infantry wouldn't often get a chance to dig in.

Ever since the concept of the "main battle tank" emerged there has been a general view that a tank is either a MBT or a light tank even though there were still designs that fell outside of what is typical for these categories. The M10 Booker really isn't light enough to be a light tank, it is very much a fire support vehicle and one that sacrifices some firepower against the most heavily armored targets (MBTs) in favor of other factors. But names like "fire support vehicle" or "mobile gun system" or whatever the particular acronym used for the M10 don't tend to stick well in the public consciousness. So, what would you call it? A medium tank? That term has generally died out and the US Army for the longest time has had the worry that by calling something a "tank" you're going to encourage some green lieutenant to utilize them like MBTs which could have disastrous result. An assault gun? The problem with that in my mind is that the term would seem to imply something with heavier armor and able to fire some quite large HE shells.

When it comes to the M10 itself one could question if the 105mm is the best choice for the rather unspecific nature of "infantry direct fire support." There are plenty of targets for which a smaller caliber autocannon might be more suitable. Yet everything is always a trade-off. Despite how much doctrine may scream to not directly fight enemy armor, it sometimes does happen and so there still is a desire for a gun powerful enough to remain a threat to such targets. Bigger HE shells are always great for engaging bunkers, buildings, trench lines, or whatever else infantry may be holed up in, but it also means you carry less ammo.

 

[Desertfox]

Light, medium, heavy describes the vehicle. Assault, tank destroyer, etc describes the mission. So I'd say the M10 Booker is both a "light" tank (compared to the Abrams) and an "Assault gun" based on its mission.

As for why the 105mm gun, well the infantry should already have 25mm autocannons in the Bradleys or Strykers. While I believe the Booker is designed to replace the Stryker MGS.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That simple logic somehow evaded the majority of tank designers in late XX century, who were so enamoured with the idea of mobile mechanized warfare, that they started to design glass cannons on tracks, which main purpose was to fight enemy tanks.

Then we put rotors on them and called them attack helicopters and they were finally really good at the job.

Light, medium, heavy describes the vehicle. Assault, tank destroyer, etc describes the mission. So I'd say the M10 Booker is both a "light" tank (compared to the Abrams) and an "Assault gun" based on its mission.

As for why the 105mm gun, well the infantry should already have 25mm autocannons in the Bradleys or Strykers. While I believe the Booker is designed to replace the Stryker MGS.

More to the point, Bookers aren't supporting infantry in Bradleys or Strykers. Those guys have Abrams support.

Bookers support leg infantry, where it's too expensive to shoot a Javelin at a bunker. Roughly half the US Army by division count is leg infantry!

 

[Firefinder]

When it comes to the M10 itself one could question if the 105mm is the best choice for the rather unspecific nature of "infantry direct fire support." There are plenty of targets for which a smaller caliber autocannon might be more suitable. Yet everything is always a trade-off. Despite how much doctrine may scream to not directly fight enemy armor, it sometimes does happen and so there still is a desire for a gun powerful enough to remain a threat to such targets. Bigger HE shells are always great for engaging bunkers, buildings, trench lines, or whatever else infantry may be holed up in, but it also means you carry less ammo.

Needs to be pointed out that in Iraq and Afghanistan the 25mm on tge Bradley's and the odd 30mm had issues punching though the thick walls of those buildings. With them being unable holes big enough to do the Breach and cleaning of the troops.

While the Stryker MGS loaded with HEAT and Canister didn't have any such issue. And ended up being loved for it with the biggest issue being the Ammunition loaded of 18 shots.

Plus the bad reliability of the autolaoder was consider an issue.

At over 30 shots, heard up to 50 with a man loader, the M10 will not have those issues.

Also there been multiple tests that any bunker able to take a 105mm to the face...

It likely need to be deleted by a 500 pound or more laser guided bomb.

As is the 105mm with apfsds will ruin a modern tank day from the side at 1km, and it doesn't need to be broadside on. Within like 60 degrees that punching though all tanks sides.

So it likely a good compromise for what the Army needs.

Can do everything GOOD ENOUGH.

and often that all you need.

 

[blockhaj]

Imo the role of the M10 Booker is OT, if that was what u were referring to?

 

[jsport]

Though why you would want dismounts in an assault gun or tank destroyer, I'm not sure.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1457269864016400384

View: https://x.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1457269864016400384

Sorry, IMHO the above statement is ill informed. The current conflict clearly displays pervasiveness of MPF and associated (less than full squad) dismounts performing a number of roles. There is a reason the Cav Scout MOS AIT is 22wks long.

 

[GTX]

Imo the role of the M10 Booker is OT, if that was what u were referring to?

Talk of A-10s, Bradleys etc etc

 

[blockhaj]

Talk of A-10s, Bradleys etc etc

i c

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Note: the M3 is intended as a reconnaissance vehicle. MPF is not.

Also, the US Army has not been very satisfied with the M3 as a recce vehicle, and keeps tinkering with some mix of light vehicle (HMMWVs, JLTVs, etc) to provide enough dismounts to actually do the dismounted scout function.

Note to note. The M3 became a scout vehicle when the dedicated scout vehicle program got axed. The MICV which became the M2/M3 was not panned to be a scout.